"The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is a film which could easily have failed due to the complexity of the Tolkien novel, but surprisingly, it succeeds. However, director Peter Jackson's choice of tone is too dark, and the film favours action against character development and plot cohesion. Nevertheless, "The Lord of the Rings" is a splendid film.

Some books are, because of their nature, practically unfilmable, and "The Lord of the Rings", John Ronald Reuel Tolkien's epic "trilogy" (a word which Tolkien resented) set in an imaginary land called Middle-Earth and peopled by strange creatures inspired by Scandinavian mythology, was one of them. The book, originally thought by the publisher as commercially unprofitable, quickly became a classic following its original release in three parts in 1954 and 1955, and today Tolkien (1892-1973) is considered the father of the fantasy novel.

Because of the fantasy setting, which requires a great amount of special effects to be convincing, the only possible way to film it would seem to be as an animated feature, and this was attempted in 1978 by producer Saul Zaentz, with Ralph Bakshi, of "Fritz the Cat" (1972) notoriety, as its director. It was considered a disappointment, and only covered the first two books of the "trilogy" -- "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers". The last part, "The Return of the King" was eventually produced by other hands for television.

The Saul Zaentz Company, owner of Tolkien Enterprises (in charge of the licensing of the various names and characters from Tolkien's novels), held on to the film adaptation rights for the next twenty years, until it finally agreed to lend them to New Line Cinema while retaining a listing in the credits. Due to the complexity of the story, it was impossible to film an accurate, cohesive, and well-detailed adaptation of the novel that would last only a few hours on the screen. For this reason, and also for commercial considerations, the film "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring", directed by Peter Jackson, only covers the first part of Tolkien's "trilogy", and the other two films, "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King", while wisely shot simultaneously with the first (to provide audiences with a guarantee that these films will be released and to avoid potential blackmailing by some of the cast members regarding contracts), are slated for release in December 2002 and 2003, respectively. However, even though "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" lasts three hours, it is still too short to entirely make sense of its subject matter.

At the centre of "Fellowship of the Ring" is, of course, a ring which, at the beginning of the story, is the property of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm), and which grants its bearer the power of invisibility Bilbo had found the ring in one of his expeditions abroad, fully detailed in Tolkien's first book, "The Hobbit", published in 1937. However, Bilbo was the exception to his race: Hobbits were by definition short creatures who were renowned for their unadventurous nature and who rarely ventured outside their own settlements, known as the "Shire". At the beginning of the film, Bilbo is about to celebrate his 111th birthday when his old friend, a human wizard known as Gandalf the Grey (Sir Ian McKellen) comes to the Shire. Intrigued by Bilbo's ring, Gandalf, after making sure that Bilbo does not use the ring during his absence, leaves to conduct some research on it. When Gandalf returns to the Shire, he discovers that Bilbo has departed for the elven city of Rivendell, and has left his house and the ring to his younger cousin Frodo (Elijah Wood). The wizard's discoveries, however, are unsettling: The ring was forged by the dark lord Sauron, who had been defeated in a battle so ancient that it belonged to folklore. The power of Sauron, however, had survived in the ring, and Sauron, now an immaterial entity (a subject which remains unclear in the film), had finally learned that his old ring has survived. Frodo, now in great danger, must take the ring to the Cracks of Doom, at the heart of Sauron's kingdom, Mordor, the only place where it can be destroyed. To help him on his quest will be his gardener Sam (Sean Astin), Merry (Dominic Monaghan), Pippin (Billy Boyd), all hobbits, and later acquaintances, the humans Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and Boromir (Sean Bean), the elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and the dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies).

Due to the success of the book, the audience had high expectations about any film adaptation, but most movie-goers understood that such a complicated story and the fantasy setting made it almost impossible for any screenwriter and director to get it right. "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is not a perfect film, but given the intricate nature of the original story, we should be thankful that the film works at all. At this level, the film is a resounding success, and its various shortcomings barely affect the final result.

What is most fondly remembered of the film is its striking visual sense. Tolkien's Middle-Earth truly comes to life, thanks to the breathtaking landscape of New Zealand, the lush cinematography, the art direction, and the special effects. The crew did its homework, and painstakingly made Tolkien's fantasy land a reality, even though the film's interpretation of the setting of the novel is bound to leave some viewers dissatisfied with the choices that were made. And this is precisely in the adaptation of the novel that the film loses most of its marks.

"The Lord of the Rings" has often been described as an allegory for the political and social climate in place at the time it was written, from the late 1930's to the early 1950's. Issues such as the corruption of power and the place of women in society are said to have been treated in the book, and the unlikely alliance between hobbits, dwarves, elves, and men to fight against Sauron can easily be compared to the alliance of the English, the Americans, the Russians, and a few other nations unlikely to unite against the Axis powers during the Second World War. Since the allegorical nature of the work was noted even during Tolkien's lifetime, the author felt compelled to dismiss such conclusions in his foreword to the second edition of the book, first published in 1965, but in spite of Tolkien's affirmation that "The Lord of the Rings" was not allegorical, the book is still being noted for its allegorical meaning as well as for its literary merit. However, the theme of "The Lord of the Rings", just as in "The Hobbit" before it, was just a traditional struggle between good and evil, which has marked literature long before anyone knew about hobbits. Furthermore, the potential allegorical elements of the novel are hardly present in the film, as it was Peter Jackson and his screenwriters who decided to leave them out in favour of the epic mythology which is supposed to be at the core of the literary work.

While the decision to keep the allegory to a minimum is most welcome, Jackson's interpretation of the novel is too dark to be entirely enjoyable. Even though the novel was an epic fight between good and evil, and in spite of the disastrous consequences should the ring fall into the hands of the enemy, Tolkien's book had a naive charm of its own, and its tone was light enough to be enjoyed by children while being adequately compelling for adults. The story was occasionally interrupted for a song or some merry moment, and the dialogue remained playful. Tolkien managed to achieve just the right atmosphere for his epic novel, so that even though the fate of Middle-Earth was at stake, the protagonists -- and the readers -- found something to appreciate in nearly every step of the journey.

Peter Jackson, probably wrongly considering the original novel too quaint to be entirely credible, jettisoned all the light touches to emphasize the dark side of the story. Knowing that Jackson first made his mark as a horror director, this should not be surprising, and even though most film critics did not seem to mind the dark approach to the novel, this choice is, in this reviewer's opinion, threatening to destroy the appeal of the novel. The film is, in one word, unpleasant. Some of the scenes, especially those involving the spirit of Sauron or the creatures that pledge him allegiance, particularly orcs and the Nazgul (black riders who are the ghosts of former human kings, and whose task it is to retrieve the ring), are particularly sordid and frightening, and while the novel was certainly appropriate for children, the film adaptation is not.

Nevertheless, Jackson understood that the story had to keep some of its charm, and to make the film lighter, the characters of Pippin and Merry are granted a comic relief function (Dominic Monaghan is particularly annoying at this). However, this desperate move is so obvious that this reviewer was left less grateful to Jackson than infuriated by his pathetic attempt to cover up his own artistic decision. The other characters also suffer from a lack of depth. Only Bilbo, Frodo, Gandalf, the traitor mage Saruman (played by veteran horror actor and Tolkien enthusiast Christopher Lee), Boromir, and Aragorn seem to have any kind of personality or relevant background. Gimli, the dwarf, is of course stereotypical, and the others are apparently just there to complete the set in order to be faithful to the book. And if we know nothing about the characters, how can we possibly be asked to be moved by their fate? Although Elijah Wood is convincing as the naive young hobbit Frodo, and Viggo Mortensen and Sir Ian McKellen play their parts with aplomb, the impressive number of protagonists also prevents the emergence of a single strong performance. Instead of including more information on the members of the fellowship, the film prefers to emphasize the action scenes and the pretty landscapes.

The film, in spite of its ambitious three-hour running time, is too short. Not only is it obvious where a few scenes were cut (the most obvious examples are to be found before the party reaches the Inn of the Prancing Pony), but it also seems that the film was trimmed down to such an extent that the action and the characters, particularly in the second half of the feature, hardly make sense to anyone who has not read the novel. A film based on a novel which came complete with a map and appendices requires more background information than this one provides. It must be borne in mind that a film which requires its audience to be acquainted with the material on which it is based cannot be considered perfect, and "The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring" suffers due to the complexity of its source. An additional hour would not have entirely solved the problem, but, if wisely spent, it would have made the film more satisfying.

Because the film's chief asset is its visual beauty, it is entirely predictable that the film will lose much of its appeal on a small screen. The cliched use of blue filters in the second part of the film to give the story a dream-like appearance, which was a major irritant on the large screen, as well as all the picture's other flaws, will become more obvious. But the film, given the difficulty of its source, is successful when this reviewer expected it to fail. A few of the action scenes -- particularly the Mines of Moria -- are extremely well done, and Howard Shore's musical score, albeit obtrusive at times, will retain its epic quality over time. The film's running time is hardly noticeable, but a slower pace, for character development and story cohesion, as well as for trying to establish the right tone, would have been appreciated. Nevertheless, "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is a perfectly enjoyable film which is bound to become a classic of the fantasy film genre.

Let's just hope that its sequels will be equally successful... and lighter in treatment.